Brian Eyolfson

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning of the potential consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application, requiring the applicant to provide written submissions identifying how a settlement term was breached.

The applicant failed to provide the required submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding accommodations for the LSAT and subsequent law school admissions.

Dalhousie University requested dismissal of the allegations against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over matters occurring in Nova Scotia.

The Tribunal agreed and dismissed the application against Dalhousie.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) also challenged jurisdiction, arguing its accommodation decisions were made in Pennsylvania.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over LSAC because the service (the LSAT) and the accommodations were implemented in Ontario, and the effects of the decisions were felt in Ontario.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the individual respondent a final 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability regarding the reduction of his non-economic loss benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The respondent argued the application was barred by section 2.1 of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Notice of Constitutional Question if he intended to challenge the legislation's validity.

Despite multiple extensions, the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in contracts and employment.

A summary hearing by teleconference was scheduled to address whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference, despite being contacted directly by Tribunal staff with the correct dial-in information.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a previous interim decision ordering them to do so.

The Tribunal found that the respondents received notice and chose not to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

The matter will proceed to a hearing without the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the hearing and failed to take the necessary steps to pursue the application.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant, an auxiliary police officer, alleged he was subjected to reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code when he was permanently screened out of the Toronto Police Service's recruitment process after complaining about alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal found that while the complainant had claimed rights under the Code, there was no nexus between his complaint and the decision to screen him out.

The decision to permanently screen him out was based on a review of his application file which revealed concerns about his judgment and ability to be supervised, including a withdrawn charge of impersonating a police officer and a history of challenging decisions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted them 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondent 10 days to file a response and an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to the respondent pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a complete Response, instead submitting a letter arguing the applicant lacked standing and seeking early dismissal.

The Tribunal held that its Rules require a full Response even when a preliminary or jurisdictional issue is raised, except in four specific circumstances not applicable here.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a full Response before proceeding further.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondent 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment and with respect to membership in a vocational association.

During the hearing of the applications, the applicant requested to withdraw both applications.

The respondents consented to the withdrawals.

The Tribunal granted the requests and the applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant, a sous chef, went on medical leave due to vertigo and anxiety.

When he attempted to return to work, the respondent restaurant repeatedly delayed his return and eventually told him to find another job.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability by failing to facilitate his return to work.

The applicant was awarded $8,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $3,344 for lost wages.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response within 10 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that if they do not file a Response within 10 days, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted all allegations in the Application.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1, arguing the substance was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply, warning that failure to do so could result in abandonment.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to appear at a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence or provide a current mailing address.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.